AN OPEN LETTER 

TO 
THE RIGHT HONORABLE 

EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGU 

His Brittanic Majesty's Secretary o{ State for India. 
^VllitcLall, London. 



BY 

LAJPAT RAI 



AN OPEN LETTER 

TO 

THE RIGHT HONORABLE 

EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

His Brittanic Majesty's Secretary or State for Inaia. 
^VLitekall, London. 



BY 

LAJPAT RAI ^i^^ 



:2 S-^^9 



Or//£/? BOOKS BY LAJPAT RAI 

YOUNG INDIA 

An Interpretation and a History of the 
Nationalist Movement from Within 

Price $1.50 net 



ENGLAND'S DEBT TO INDIA 

A Historical Narrative of Britain s 
Fiscal Policy in India 

Price $2.00 net 



THE ARYA SAMAJ 

An Account of its Origins 
Doctrines and Activities 

Price $1.75 net 

OBTAINABLE FROM ALL BOOKSELLERS 



TO 
THE RIGHT HONORABLE 
MR. EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

His Brittanic Majesty ^s Secretary of State for India, 
Whitehall, London. 

Dear Sir: 

Permit me to congratulate you most heartily on your 
appointment to the high office you now hold which makes 
you virtually the Supreme ruler of the teeming millions 
of India. The Secretary of State for India, under the 
law as it stands, wields in both theory and practice, 
greater powers, over a greater area, covering a larger 
population, that the Grand Moghul of India ever did, 
even in his halcyon days, or than any other single mon- 
arch or ruler does in these days except the President of 
the United States or the President of China. India has 
been aptly said to be the ' ' brightest ' ' and I may add, 
the biggest jewel in the Crown of Great Britain and 
Ireland. It is in fact the only possession, which con- 
stitutes the British Empire, as the rest of the Empire, 
excluding the self governing Dominions, has either arisen 
out of it or is held for the purpose of safeguarding Brit- 
ish supremacy there. It is the only part of the Empire 
which pays and has in the past paid well. It is the 
only part, outside Great Britain itself, which has a his- 
tory and a past, great and glorious — whose people were 
once not only free and rich, but highly civilized, the 
originators and founders of a civilization which still 

3 



AN OPEN LETTER 

shines with a splendour and richness of its own. Any- 
one may consequently be proud of holding the office, 
to which you, Sir, have recently been appointed by the 
Prime Minister of Great Britain. There is hardly any 
other office in the British Empire which can compare 
favorably, either in possibilities or in potentialities, in 
the extent of the power which it confers on its holder or 
in its importance in relation to the rest of the Empire, 
with the one you are filling at the present moment. There 
is no other office, the holder of which exercises his power 
without any responsibility to the people whose destiny 
for good or for evil he controls. Even the Prime Min- 
ister is subjected to a greater amount of direct criticism 
than falls to the lot of the Secretary of State for India. 
The only occasion on which the Secretary of State for 
India feels the burden of his office arises when some un- 
toward event happens which directly affects the British 
elector, or touches British lives and British prestige 
abroad. 

Such an occasion was furnished in this war by the 
Mesopotamia incident. The fall of Kut, the loss of pres- 
tige caused thereby, the importance of the disaster in 
the present emergency, the loss of valuable lives which 
it is said could be prevented by more prudent manage- 
ment of the campaign, have moved the British public in 
such manner as few other incidents in connection with the 
administration of India, have done since the mutiny of 
1857, if at all. If my memory does not deceive me this 
is perhaps the only occasion in the history of British rule 
in India, at least after the crown assumed the direct 
management of Indian affairs, when British public opin- 
ion asserted itself so strongly and so effectively as to 
force the Secretary of State for India to resign his office. 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

But the history of the British administration of India 
is full of incidents which resulted in greater losses of 
human lives in India and outside than on this occasion, 
but these lives were mostly those of the natives and they 
apparently did not matter much. The millions who died 
by preventable famines, by inefficient and inadequate 
handling of the bubonic plague, the millions who die by 
preventable unsanitary conditions and by diseases 
brought about by insufficient feeding and horrible hous- 
ing, have never seemingly moved the British public so 
deeply and intensely as the Mesopotamia aifair has done. 

From the Indian point of view it is something to have 
had a Mesopotamia disaster. It has opened the eyes of 
the British public to the real nature of what is the Gov- 
ernment of India. Even the Jingoes have discovered 
that it is wrong to entrust such vast powers to one or 
two men. A writer in the Evening News (11th July) 
is forced to admit that ' ' to all intents and purposes India, 
with its population of 300,000,000, and its vast area and 
resources, is under the autocratic rule of two men — ^the 
Secretary of State and the Viceroy. It is true that both 
of these high personages have Councils to assist them, 
but in all matters affecting the internal and most of the 
external affairs of India, their word goes, and is unchal- 
lenged and uncriticised. They can make and unmake, 
cut down or expand, issue inexorable decrees which may 
alter the lives of millions of the King's subjects, and, in 
fact, play with this great Empire almost as they will. ' ' 
So far the Imperialist had insisted on trusting the ''man 
on the spot. ' ' It was repeated ad nauseum, in season and 
out of season, that the Indian Services, Civil and Mili- 
tary, were the acme of perfection and that they should 
be absolutely trusted in Indian affairs. Any criticism 



AN OPEN LETTER 

by Parliament or by Members was considered officious 
and impertinent. The few members who called the at- 
tention of the British public to the condition of affairs in 
India and to the grievances of the natives, were called 
names and branded as ** little Englanders/' ''mischief 
makers/' ''meddlers" and so on. After over a century 
of misrule, it has been discovered that it was wrong to 
leave the actual Rulers of India so little controlled by 
Parliament or public opinion as they have been. Adds 
the writer in the Evening News : — 

"What really influential voice has this country or 
Parliament in the Government of India ? The Secretary 
of State, although nominally responsible to the Prime 
Minister, is really uncontrolled. Old, encrusted custom 
has resulted in the practical abolition of supervision, 
either by the Premier personally or by the Cabinet. It 
is true that the Secretary of State may consult his col- 
leagues, but none of them would dispute any of his find- 
ings or those of the Viceroy — ^the man on the spot. 

"And the Indian debates in the House of Commons 
have always been perfunctory and 'uninteresting.' The 
great majority of the members did not listen or take part 
in them ; India was so far away, and, besides, they knew 
nothing of the complex machinery which was used in its 
administration. So all comment on Ministers' state- 
ments was left to the small body of "Indian" members, 
who had a few questions to ask as to military or com- 
mercial matters in which they might be personally con- 
cerned. 

"COMPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL. 

"The India Office has stood aloof and somewhat 
mysterious to the ordinary run of Englishman. Very 

6 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

little is known outside as to the composition of its council 
or the manner in which it is elected. As a matter of fact 
the Council consists of a dozen members, mostly Anglo- 
Indian officials, one military member, and two mem- 
bers of the Indian community. It meets weekly or fort- 
nightly, and takes the advice of the permanent officials 
on most matters. 

** Permanent officials have not been a great success 
in the English Civil Service, and the India Office pro- 
vides no exception. These men, autocrats in their own 
spheres, have an admirable knowledge and experience of 
routine, and faithfully adhere to the system of their 
predecessors, but the two most essential qualities in a 
successful head of a department, common sense and im- 
agination, are not conspicuous in their efforts. And it 
must be remembered in this connection that the Secre- 
tary of State and his Council take their action largely on 
the advice of the permanent officials. 

**In India the Viceroy can over-rule a decision of his 
Council, and is, in fact, an absolute monarch; a despot, 
though a benevolent one. . . . 

Later on the writer draws the following picture of 
the Indian officials. 

**When he (Lord Curzon) was in India, Lord 
Kitchener, always intolerant of superior authority, ob- 
jected to the military member of the Viceroy's Council 
being an officer junior (sic) to him. He had his way, 
but the result is that, under the present arrangement, 
the Commander-in-Chief is the one who directs the 
Viceroy's military policy, and no independent voice can 
be raised against him. 

**It is easy to imagine what a breeding ground for 
sycophancy and intrigue is afforded by such a system. 



AN OPEN LETTEE 

outside the control of public or parliament, and in which 
full power is in the hands of one or two men. We have 
seen something during this war of the way in which wo- 
men can bring influence to bear in high military quarters 
at home. But in the Indian services the amount of 
intrigue is appaling. 

*' Those who know anything about the way appoint- 
ments are made, both in Civil Service and the Army of 
India, were not surprised at the failures disclosed in the 
Mesopotamia report, although they were staggered at the 
amount of incompetence and misjudgment attained. 
Mesopotamia is not the only field where high Indian offi- 
cials blundered. 

**In too few cases are efficiency and merit the step- 
ping stones to promotion and influential position. Sen- 
iority, although it carries along with it stupidity, and 
favour gain the ' Plums. ' Many civil servants and Army 
officers in India, burning with desire to leave things bet- 
ter than they found them, have been snubbed for their 
zeal, and * black listed' by the mandarins owing to the 
evidence of ability and ideas they possessed. . . . ' ' 

I have given this lengthy quotation in support of my 
statement as to the unique nature of the position held by 
the Secretary of State for India and the Indian Services 
under him. It is, thus, the greatest and most responsible 
office under the crown. Sir, to which you have been raised, 
on a historic occasion like this. Your appointment has 
met with a mixed reception. The Liberals of England 
are satisfied, the Natives of India are pleased, the Tories 
are shocked and the Anglo-Indian Jingoes terrified. The 
very fact that the Tories have been shocked by your ap- 
pointment and the Anglo-Indian jingoes terrified; the 
reasons adduced by them in their chorus of disapproval 

8 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

and dissatisfaction (one of them, Lord Beresford, had 
the meanness to say that you were disqualified for the 
post because you were not fully of British blood) are 
a fortiori, good grounds for the exultation of the Indians 
over your appointment. But they have something more 
than this to rely upon. Your work as Under Secretary 
of State for India under Lord Morley, and your sub- 
sequent, particularly more recent utterances relating to 
India, have filled them with hope. They feel as if they 
have found a Messiah in you. It is here that I have my 
misgivings. While I can join with them in sincerely 
congratulating you on your well deserved elevation, my 
studies of the English political system and past expe- 
rience of English dealings with India, give me no reason 
to be over-optimistic about your ability to effect suck 
radical changes in the system of administration in Indiai 
as alone will satisfy the most moderate of Indian na- 
tionalists. However, your selection was perhaps the best; 
that could be made by the Premier and for that we may 
well be grateful to him. 

What, however, damps our spirit and mars en- 
thusiasm is the sad disillusionment we have had in the 
past, particularly in the case of Lord Morley. In 1906 
when the late Sir Henry Campbell Banneman came to 
power, the Indian political organizations throughout In- 
dia cabled their congratulations to him, at the same time 
praying that John Morley be appointed Secretary of 
State for India. As fate would have it, one of these 
cablegrams was drafted by me on behalf of the Indian 
Association of Lahore. When our request was actually 
granted and the appointment of Mr. John Morley as Sec- 
retary of State for India was announced, all India re- 
joiced and felt as if their moment of delivery had come. 



AN OPEN LETTEB 

But to their sorrow and disappointment John Morley was 
not in office for 12 months before they found out that 
even he could not do anything worth doing. They had 
hoped that he would undo the mischief done by Lord 
Curzon in the partition of Bengal, that he would give 
them some kind of self-government, that he would make 
education free and compulsory and that he would lay 
the foundations of an Industrial India; but before long 
they discovered that the bureaucracy in India and the 
Jingoes in England had succeeded in spreading their 
spell over the soul of John Morley. John Morley not 
only refused to undo the partition of Bengal but went 
several steps further in discarding the great principles 
of his life as regards the sacredness of human liberties. 
He sanctioned deportations without trial and inaugur- 
ated a general regime of coercion and repression. The 
writer of this letter, one of those who had prayed for his 
appointment, was the first victim of John Morley 's 
changed soul. The disillusionment that followed was 
terrible and gave birth to the Indian Revolutionary 
party, which has now become a permanent feature of 
Indian life. We do not know what were the inner in- 
fluences that brought about the change in Morley; nor 
whether his convictions were reversed or whether he 
found his environment too strong for him. The fact 
remains that when in actual office, John Morley failed to 
act up to his principles and that it was the constant 
worry of being reminded of this fact by his colleagues 
of the ministerial benches in the House of Commons 
which reconciled him to let ** honest John" be metamor- 
phosed into Viscount Morley. The birth of the noble 
Viscount was the death of the great Commoner. What 
I am afraid of, is that the same fate might be awaiting 

10 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

you in the near future. Those who kQow what a great 
personality John Morley was in British politics in 1906, 
find it rather difficult to believe, much against their 
wishes, that you would succeed where John Morley had 
failed. 

Yet it is because of that hope that the Indians of all 
classes and shades of opinion have hailed your appoint- 
ment as the head of the Government of India with joy, 
with hope and with enthusiasm. 

Much water has flowed down the Indus since Lord 
Morley retired from the office of the Secretary of State 
for India, Events have happened on the Thames, the 
Danube, the Elbe, the Rhine, the Volga, the Tigris and 
the Nile, that foretell momentous changes in the world. 
After this bloody war in which millions have died and 
millions have been maimed for life, which has devastated 
the whole of Europe and laid waste large tracts of Asia 
and Africa, which has brought to dust the proudest heads 
and the sharpest intellects of Europe, it is inconceivable 
that the world will revert to pre-war conditions of life. 

India of 1917 is also quite different from India of 
1907. Hindus and Mohammedans have sunk their dif- 
ferences and are making a united stand in their demand 
for political liberties. The Anglo-Indian plans of creat- 
ing an Indian Ulster have miscarried and never before 
during the British domination was India so united in its 
political and economic ideals as to-day. In 1907, we were 
yet babies ** crying for the moon." We had not yet 
grasped the fundamentals of the situation. Our horizon 
was clouded by sectarian boundaries and we were fight- 
ing for crumbs. In 1917 we are a united people no 
longer praying for concessions, but demanding rights. 
Our earnestness has stood the tests which are usually ap- 

11 



AN OPEN LETTEB 

pi 11 such cases. The records of criminal courts, the 
prls" IS in India and outside, the large list of patriots 
who h ive willingly given away their lives for the cause 
of freedom, the battlefields of France, Flanders and Mes- 
opotamia, the international centres of the world are all 
evidences of our determination to win our rights, be the 
cost what it may. Yes, all this is true but it is equally 
true that while the world has advanced and is advancing, 
has changed and is changing; while India of to-day is 
so radically different from India of 1907, the Curzons and 
Sydenhams of British politics are, as regards India, still 
standing where they were ten years ago. Who knows but 
that in spite of a clear brain and a willing heart, you also 
m-y eventually succumb to sinister influences? It may 
be that these apprehensions are unfounded and that your 
appointment as Secretary of State for India is an earnest 
of the united mind of the Cabinet about the future Gov- 
ernment of India, and that Mr. David Lloyd George has 
after all persuaded his colleagues to take a broad view of 
things and save India for the Empire, by conceding to 
her what is after all her due. This is however in the 
womb of future. In the meantime we may well consider 
what the situation demands. I propose to examine the 
situation from the point of view of the moderates. 

II 

Let us first see what the fundamental grievances of 
India are. Our first grievance is that the Government of 
India is an absentee landlordism, in no way responsible 
to the people of India, the latter havin'g no voice in its 
constitution or in its renewal. Our second grievance 
is that the Government of India is principally carried 
on in the interest of the British capitalists and that 

12 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

British interests take precedence in the determination 
of Indian fiscal policy. The fact that India is governed 
by a bureaucracy foreign in race, religion and nation- 
ality, that the Indians are treated as Helots, unworthy 
of carrying arms and keeping and manufacturing them, 
that they are denied the benefits of free education, free 
speech and free press, and that they die in millions from 
famine and epidemics and unsanitary conditions for 
want of adequate measures to protect them from the 
causes thereof, all follow from the two fundamental 
causes mentioned above. 

Great Britain and her allies in the war have been 
objecting to Prussian autocracy, Prussian bureaucracy, 
Prussian militarism and Prussian junkerism. Yet in 
India all these monstrosities exist in an extraordinary 
degree and every effort to dethrone them is vehemently 
opposed by persons who want the world to believe that 
they are fighting to establish democracy and to enforce 
the principles of democratic Governments all the world 
over. What the Indians are asking for, is nothing but 
the application of these principles to the Government 
of India and it is obvious that no reform could be satis- 
factory which is not in accord with these principles. It 
may be, that the vested interests of the Empire do not 
permit of a bold and decisive step being taken at once 
in democratising the personnel of the Government of 
India, but surely no reform of the Indian Administration 
can be even a step toward the goal which does not secure 
fiscal autonomy to the people of India. India cannot 
and ought not, in the words of Mr. Austen Chamberlain, 
to continue to be the hewer of wood and the drawer of 
water for the rest of the Empire as she has heen in the 
past. 

13 



AN OPEN LETTEB 

The Mesopotamia disaster has brought to light the 
fundamental weakness of the Government of India — its 
irresponsibility. What is the Government of India? 
The civil and military servants recruited in England con- 
stitute the Government of India. They govern India in 
the name of the British people. They make no secret of 
the fact that they are in no way responsible to the people 
of India. But are they responsible to the British nation ? 
In theory, yes. In practise, no. The British nation and 
their representatives in Parliament exercise no control 
over the Government of India, have neither the wish nor 
the time to do so. The Services are self-contained and 
self-controlled. They have in the course of the last sixty 
years evolved an ethical code of their own, which brooks 
no interference or control from without — which lays 
down the standards by which everything relating to the 
functions of Government in India is judged. The first 
test of everything is, how does it affect the Services — their 
status, their salaries, their prospects, last but not least 
their prestige. Nothing which cannot pass through these 
crucibles can be good for India or for the Empire. The 
civil and military servants that rule India are so many 
Gods, with their Goddesses by their sides, who form an 
oligarchy whose interests and comforts and prestige dom- 
inate all the activities of Government in India. They are 
tRere to safeguard and protect the interests of the Em- 
pire — viz., those of the British capitalist and the British 
manufacturer. The Government of India is a kind of 
closely organized trade guild or trade union, in which 
the non-unionist has no chance and the like of which the 
world has not known before. The difference between an 
ordinary Indian and an Indian Civil Service man may 
best be judged by the difference between their economic 

14 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

positions. The lowest salary of an Indian Civil Servant 
is R450 a month to which substantial additions are allow- 
able in the shape of allowances, etc. The lowest salary of 
an Indian Government employe is R7 a month. So an 
ordinary Indian is worth only 7/450 as compared with 
an Englishman in the lowest grades of the Indian Civil 
Service. The human needs of the two, their personal 
and family needs ought to be the same but even making 
allowances for the special needs of a ruler imported from 
a foreign climate, the difference between their economic 
positions is a standardising of human degradation 
sanctioned by *' Democratic" England. Once you accept 
these standards as valid and legitimate, the rest follows 
as a matter of course. In my humble judgment the crux 
of the situation lies here. Are the rank and file of In- 
dians human beings? Are the rank and file of the 
Anglo-Indians in India, or even the highest of them 
Oods, to be worshipped by the former? Are they en- 
titled to treat the former as if they existed for their use 
or for the uses of their masters, the British capitalists? 
Has India any rights of her own or is she merely the 
drudge of the Empire? Must she continue to be the 
mere hewer, of wood and the drawer of water for the rest 
of the Empire ? ! ! ! What is the position of the Govern- 
ment in India ? Are they rulers imposed from without by 
force or are they servants, delegated to perform the 
functions of Government by the free choice and consent 
of the people ? Does the Government exist for the people 
or the reverse of it? Must India be governed from the 
outside or is she to govern herself? Is she to continue 
to be the milch cow of the Empire, a mere possession to 
be exploited by the masters, or is she to occupy a position 
of equality and be an equal among equals ? If the Brit- 

15 



AN OPEN LETTER 

ish statesmen honestly mean to confer a position of equal- 
ity on India then they must cease to talk of India in the 
language of patronage. The question then is not, how 
far and how many Indians can be admitted into the 
Government of their country, but how far it is necessary, 
in the interests of India, to employ Britishers of non- 
Indian origin. The question is not how England should 
govern India, but how India should govern herself. 

Let there be no misunderstanding on this point, Mr. 
Montague. Moderate India is prepared to share the bur- 
dens of the Empire in proportion to the benefits she re- 
ceives from the Empire, in a spirit of family co-opera- 
tion, but no more. What we stand for, are our rights 
and liberties and not a few posts in the Services or a few 
seats in the Councils. We ask for no favors. We de- 
mand our rights. 

The British element in the Indian Administration 
must disappear; whether it disappears now or in ten 
years or even in twenty is not material. Any scheme that 
ignores this point of view is doomed to failure. The ex- 
tremists are for absolute independence because they do 
not believe that the British will ever concede that point. 
The moment that point is conceded in genuine honesty 
of purpose, the cult of extremism will lose the vast bulk 
of its adherents. 

We are a part of the British Empire ; we have largely 
contributed to make the Empire as it is to-day. But so 
far, we have shed our blood, given our substance in 
wealth and labor in making the Empire for the benefit 
of others. Henceforth we shall like to reap the benefits 
thereof, shouldering the burdens in proportion to our 
means. Henceforth the test to be applied in deciding 
all questions relating to the constitution of the Govern- 

16 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

ment of India should be how far a contemplated scheme 
accords with that principle. All such questions must in 
future be submitted to the judgment of the Indians. No 
decision should be imposed on them in the arriving at 
which they have had no direct share. 

Let us apply this test to the different schemes put 
forward for the future Government of India and then 
decide, in mutual consultation, which of them is likely to 
satisfy the Indians. So far we have three schemes be- 
fore us : 

(a) The one formulated by the joint Committee of 
the Indian National Congress and the Moslem League, 
which is substantially the same as was submitted by the 
elected members of the Supreme Legislative Council of 
India. 

(b) Mr. Gokhale's scheme recently made public in 
the columns of the Times. 

(c) Lord Islington's scheme, outlined by him in a 
speech at Oxford, on August 8, 1917. 

In vT^eighing Mr. Gokhale's scheme, it should be re- 
membered that it was drawn up (a) when he was very 
ill; (b) in the early days of the war, long before the de- 
velopments of 1915, 1916 and 1917 had taken place. The 
world has since then advanced much further than could 
have been imagined by Mr. Gokhale. The scheme bears 
upon it the stamp of over-cautiousness and is more a kind 
of halting compromise than a record of his wishes. I 
yield to none in my respect for Mr. Gokhale. I do not 
think Indian public life, during British rule, has pro- 
duced a man of greater depth of patriotism, more sincere 
love of country and finer sentiments of honor and self- 
respect than he. His disinterestedness and incorrupti- 
bility were above suspicion. In his conceptions of pos- 

17 



AN OPEN LETTER 

sibilities, however, he was rather timid and over-cautious. 
He was afraid of being called a dreamer. The charge 
which he dreaded most was that of a visionary. Hence 
his mind always halted in making even just demands. 
He was rather a poor negotiator.* 

But what makes his scheme impracticable and unac- 
ceptable is that it lacks in all safeguards against future 
economic exploitation of India by the rest of the British 
Empire. No scheme can be acceptable to India which 
does not protect us from that. India is poor, has grown 
poorer under British rule. But what is most deplorable 
is that its masses are the most illiterate and suffering lot 
on the face of the earth. No scheme of Government can 
be accepted which does not make sufficient provision 
under proper guarantees for the uplift of the Indian 
masses, both educationally and economically. In fact 



"Since the above was in type, we have read the following 
paragraph which appeared in ^' India," London, of August 31, 
1917: 

'^A Bombay telegram of August 22, brings particulars of 
an important statement on the subject of Mr. Gokhale's Apo- 
litical testament^ which has been made by Mr. V. S. Srinivasa 
Sastri, member of the Imperial Legislative Council, and suc- 
cessor of Mr. Gokhale as senior member of the Servants of India 
Society. The memorandum, says Mr. Sastri, was only a rough 
draft prepared with a view to consultation with Sir Pherozeshah 
Mehta and the Aga Khan. It does not represent Mr. Gokhale ^s 
final conclusions, or what, in his opinion, the people of India 
were fit for; but only what might, if spontaneously announced 
by the Government, avert agitation during the war and assure 
the fullest co-operation of the people of India. Mr. Sastri ex- 
presses the belief that, if Mr. Gokhale were alive to-day, he 
would voice the most progressive and enlightened phase of 
public thought compatible with the safety of the Empire and 
with ordered progress in India." 

18 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

these two go together. The Indian ryot and the Indian 
working man must be lifted up from the lowest depths 
of the economic slough in which they at present are. That 
is not possible unless India gets fiscal autonomy. Mr. 
Gokhale seems to provide for it by suggesting that *4n 
financial matters the Government of India," constituted 
as proposed by him, *' should be freed from the control 
of the Secretary of State." Unhappily, however, he 
ignores that under his scheme the Government of India 
shall always have a standing majority of non-Indians, 
on both the Executive and the Legislative side. So long 
as the final taxing power is in the hands of non-Indians, 
it is futile to expect that the financial interests of India 
can be sufficiently protected. It does no good to ignore 
human nature. The Britishers in India, official or non- 
ofiicial, cannot be expected to put the interests of India 
and of the Indian masses above those of Great Britain 
and the Empire. All the misfortunes of India in the 
past have proceeded from that assumption. Individual 
Britishers have here and there risen above that human 
weakness styled the love of one's own country and one's 
own people, but generally they have failed. To form- 
ulate any scheme for the future Government of India, 
which is based on the above assumption and which does 
not secure economic independence to India is to give the 
shadow while denying the substance. 

Mr. Gokhale 's scheme does not make adequate 
provision for this. He seems to have thought that mak- 
ing the Government of India independent of the Secre- 
tary of State's control ''in financial matters" insures 
that. It would, if the Government of India were made 
responsible to a Legislative Council, having a majority 
of elected Indian members. But not otherwise. An 

19 



AN OPEN LETTER 

official majority in the Viceroy's Council is in practise 
a negation of India's right to lay down its own fiscal 
policy. 

Lord Islington's scheme, which everybody who has 
any political sense can understand, probably lays down 
the general lines on which the British statesmen in the 
Cabinet are thinking, adopts the ''harmless" provisions 
of Mr. Gokhale's scheme, but rejects the only safeguard 
that he provides against the future economic exploita- 
tion of India. Lord Islington tells us that the Secretary 
of State 's Council cannot be abolished nor will the Secre- 
tary of State's control and veto be done away with. In 
the light of past experience, let us see what this means. 
Suppose the Legislative Council of India passes a finan- 
cial measure which, though obviously beneficial to India 
like the cotton duties, is supposed to be harmful to Brit- 
ish commercial interests, what will the Secretary of State 
for India, who is always a party man, do ? In nine cases 
out of ten he will do what Lord Salisbury did in 1876, 
i. e., overrule and veto the measure passed by the Legis- 
lative Council of India; perhaps he will nip the idea in 
the bud and will not allow or sanction legislation at aU. 
In 1876 Lord Salisbury disapproved of the tariff on cot- 
ton goods imposed by Lord Northbrook, with the con- 
currence of the majority of his Council. When informed 
of it, Lord Salisbury, as Secretary of State, not only ob- 
jected to the legislation, but also expressed his resent- 
ment at the Government of India having undertaken the 
legislation without his sanction. Lord Northbrook re- 
signed, and since then the Government of India has been 
the willing slave of the Secretary of State. 

This state of things is bound to continue if the Sec- 
retary of State's veto is retained and also if the Vice- 

20 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

roy's Council is so constituted as to give a majority veto 
to officials. Now this must not be. The Indian Legis- 
lature, having a majority of non-official Indians, must 
have the supreme power of saying what taxes they will 
raise and how they will spend them. The most that can 
be conceded in the matter is that India 's contribution to- 
wards Imperial purposes may be fixed by Parliament and 
any reduction of that may be put outside the jurisdiction 
of the Indian Legislature. 

A retrospective review of the Government of India's 
military policy would show that India has so far been 
spending a greater proportion of her revenues on the 
Army, than has ever been done by any other part of the 
Empire. Mr. Yusaf Ali, late of the I. C. S., quoted the 
figures in the Nineteenth Century for February, 1917. 

Military Budgets of the British Empire for 1913-1914 

Percentage of 

Millions of Total Budget 

Pounds of Revenue 

Great Britain 28.2 14.5 

India 18. 22. 

Australia 2.5 10. 

Canada 1.5 5. 

South Africa 1.15 7.7 

Yet we observe that the Mesopotamia Commission 
has ruthlessly criticised the conduct of the Indian finance 
minister who is said to have refused to sanction greater 
outlay on the army in India at a time when no war was 
in sight. 

In India money has been spent like water on frontier 
defences, frontier wars, and frontier railways. Out- 

21 



AN OPEN LETTEE 

side India, we have paid for wars which were waged in 
British interests and for Imperial purposes. A ref- 
erence to the evidence given before the Royal Commis- 
sion on Indian expenditure in 1896, will show how India 
in the past was saddled with the expenses of foreign 
wars. Now we do not object to sharing the burdens of 
the Empire in proportion to our means and in proportion 
to the benefits we get for our connection with the Em- 
pire, but we strongly object to being bled in the inter- 
est of the other parts of the Empire. The extent to 
which revenues raised from the starving ryots have 
hitherto been spent on the Army, has resulted in starving 
those departments of civil life without which civil prog- 
ress of any kind is impossible, for example, education, 
sanitation and industries. This state of things cannot 
continue. The future organization of the Army should 
be placed on such lines as to secure the greatest amount 
of protection at the least expense. A national militia 
may be organized by which a large number of trained In- 
dians may be kept in reserve without being paid full 
salaries. The number of British soldiers may be re- 
duced. An Indian Navy manned by Indians may be or- 
ganised and the cost charged to Indian revenues. Any- 
way, India 's contributions to the military strength of the 
Empire may be fixed by Parliament and thus placed out- 
side the power of the Indian Legislature. The quota 
thus fixed should be furnished by both British India and 
the Native States. The Native States ought to bear their 
proportional share of the burden. I am confident that 
the moment military careers are opened to the Indians 
on terms of honor and self-respect a large number of 
Indian volunteers would be forthcoming for the defence 
of the country and for the maintenance of internal order. 

22 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

So far, India has been the "goat" of the Empire. 
In future she refuses to be so. The heads of Federal 
revenues mentioned by Lord Islington,— customs, post- 
office, railways, telegraphs, forests, salt, mint, tributes, 
are such as to make it impossible for any improper dis- 
criminations to be made by the Indians among them- 
selves, so no fear need be entertained on that score. The 
memorandum left by Mr. Gokhale was his personal opin- 
ion prepared at a time when his health was failing. He 
never discussed the matter with his friends and col- 
leagues. His opinions do not in any way bind the rest 
of India and any attempt to take shelter behind the 
authority of his great name in denying substantial fiscal 
autonomy to India will be deeply resented. Young India 
cannot be bound by the opinion of one man, however 
illustrious that man may have been. * 

Taking the other items of the two schemes, both Mr. 
Gokhale and Lord Islington, seem to be agreed that the 
Governors should be appointed from England. So far 
good, but we fail to see why Governorships cannot be 
thrown open to Indians. Indians are administering Na- 
tive states. Why cannot they govern British provinces? 
Why must the governors be always Englishmen? Do 
you really think. Sir, that men like Lord Pentland, Sir 
Michael 0. Dwyer, Lord Sydenham, Sir James LaTouche, 
Sir Charles Rivalz, Sir Louis Dane, are such superior be- 
ings that no Indians of that calibre could be found in 
the length and breadth of India? Let our past history 
and the records of Native states answer this question. 



* That Nationalist-India is taking this view of Mr. 
Gokhale 's scheme is apparent from Eeuter's telegrams to the 
* ' Times. ' ' Two Mohammedan gentlemen resident in England 
have said the same thing in a signed letter to the '^Manchester 
Guardian." 

23 



AN OPEN LETTER 

As to the Executive Councils of the provinces, Mr. 
Gokhale's memorandum fixes the number at six, Lord 
Islington proposes only four. Mr. Gokhale's memoran- 
dum is silent as to the method of selection of Indian mem- 
bers, while Lord Islington says that election in their case 
is out of the question. Lord Islington is discreetly silent 
about the strength and composition of the Provisional 
Legislative Councils, while Mr. Gokhale's memorandum 
makes definite recommendations on these points, and adds 
that on the Provincial Legislative Councils 'Hhere should 
be no nominated non-official members except as experts. ' ' 
He fixes the proportion of elected non-official members at 
four-fifths. But the fact that he makes the tenure of 
office of the members of the Provincial Councils inde- 
pendent of the Legislative Councils reduces considerably 
the value of his scheme as a measure of self-government. 

Coming to the other points, we find that both Mr. 
Gokhale and Lord Islington have said nothing about the 
future recruitment of the Services. There are many 
people who know what Mr. Gokhale's opinions in the 
matter were. Mr. Justice Abdul Rahim has expressed 
them in his minute of dissent. Even in this memoran- 
dum Gokhale has said that in provinces the services 
should be ' ' provincial. ' ' Now the term ' ' provincial ' ' has 
come to possess a technical meaning and if Mr. Gokhale 
has used it in that sense then it means that he did not 
want the provincial services to be manned by the I. C. S. 
men. If so, the I. C. S. men would, under his scheme, be 
employed only in the departments under the Government 
of India and their number would necessarily be limited. 
The recommendations of the Royal Commission in the 
matter of the future recruitment of the services have 

24 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

been so widely and thoroughly criticised in India and in 
England that I need not say anything on that score. 

But it should be distinctly understood that no reform 
of the Indian Administration would be fruitful unless 
the bureaucratic character of the Services is changed. 
There is a great deal of sense in the following observa- 
tions of the writer in the Evening News, London : 

^'The whole system has been described as ^rotten to 
the core.' Without going so far as that, it may be said 
that Parliament should exercise more control over Indian 
affairs, that the appointments to the Councils should be 
open to criticism, that a systematic clearance of all in- 
competents should be made in both civil and military 
services, and a chance given to broad-minded, intelligent 
men who can be found to serve India. * Permanent ' is a 
word that should be wiped out of existence in the matter 
of officialdom, and a man should be retained in his office 
only by reason of his fitness for and his success in it. 

* ' It is good news to hear that Mr. Austen Chamber- 
lain is developing a scheme to give India more control 
over her own affairs, but he will meet with failure at the 
outset if he allows the ordinary type of Indian official 
too much voice in his new system. If he is able to get 
the farmers, and the business men, as well as the ruling 
classes, to take an intelligent and helpful share in the 
management of the Empire, there will be no more 'Mes- 
pots' and India will be able to look forward with some 
hope to that progress which is now suffocated by apathy 
and red-tapeism. " 

What is needed is that for ordinary purposes the 
Services be recruited by competitive examinations held 
in India. But all appointments requiring expert knowl- 
edge like the heads of the Finance, Engineering, Medical, 

25 



AN OPEN LETTER 

Education departments, should be made only for a num- 
ber of years, thus providing for the infusion of new- 
blood with up to date ideas on these subjects. The heads 
of great departments should not be appointed by senior- 
ity, but by selection on merit, such selection includ- 
ing men not in the permanent services. Why should 
Indian taxes be spent in paying big salaries to men who 
received their education and succeeded in passing ex- 
aminations when the world was still backward in scien- 
tific development? Knowledge is advancing with rapid 
strides. Men who are not up to date in such subjects as 
sociology, criminology, psychology, social psychology, 
crowd psychology, psycho-analysis, etc., ought not to be 
allowed to preside over Courts of Justice or lay down 
principles of administration. I have known Judges pre- 
siding in the highest criminal courts of the country, who 
were promoted to these offices from lower grades, who 
had as much knowledge of criminology and psychology 
as we have about the man in the moon. Men have been 
appointed to High Court Judgeships who had had no 
judicial training, who had never practiced law, simply 
because their seniority in the service entitled them to 
promotion. Civil servants have often been pitch-forked 
even into departments requiring technical knowledge. 
All this must cease if India is to receive the value of her 
money. 

The Mesopotamia Commission report shows how men 
of anti-diluvian views bungled the administration of 
such departments as the medical and transport, etc. 
What happened in these departments is happening in 
other departments. The transport and the commissariat 
services, the public works and the medical departments 
are corrupt ''to the core" because the service codes of 

26 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

honor protect them from exposure. Every Indian knows 
how native commissariat agents and contractors profit 
from wars and huge public works with their English 
colleagues and patrons in the services. Men of no con- 
sequence get rich quick. The money does not fall from 
the skies. It is made possible for them to make huge 
profits by incompetent and corrupt heads of depart- 
ments. The contractors and the agents share with the 
engineer and the transport officer and thus public reven- 
ues are squandered. This is by no means peculiar to 
India. It has happened in the past, even in democratic 
England, republican France and in the United States. 
The difference is that in these countries these things are 
easily detected and cannot be perpetuated. The heads 
of departments are not appointed from permanent ser- 
vices. They are constantly changed and so are not pro- 
tected by the traditional caste codes about prestige. All 
these abuses will disappear if the people of the country 
through their representatives get a voice in the manage- 
ment of their affairs. It will be to their interest to bring 
to task all corrupt officials. They will feel personal in- 
terest in the public purse. Every penny saved will 
count. At present they think that the moment a tax is 
collected it becomes the property of a foreign bureau- 
cracy in which they have no further interest. If the na- 
tive contractor or the native commissariat agent does not 
profit, they argue, some European would. Besides, all 
complaints of corruption and bribery against European 
officers are systematically discouraged by the authorities. 
It is felt that the exposure of a European official affects 
the Government prestige. So the fiction of the purity 
and the incorruptibility of the Services is maintained. 
It may be said to the honor of the Indian Civil Service 

27 



AN OPEN LETTER 

that the vast majority of them are free from financial 
corruption; but can the same be said of the army de- 
partments, or public works and railways, etc., — the great 
spending departments ? 

To sum up, fiscal autonomy must be the cornerstone 
of any reform of Indian Administration if it is to satisfy 
Indian Nationalists. The other cornerstone is the democ- 
ratised control of the public services. Any scheme 
which does not provide this will be still-born and will 
fail. 

Ill 

I observe that some British statesmen are making a 
fetish of the principle that the edifice of self-government 
should be built from below and that experience in the 
management of local affairs must be a necessary qualifi- 
cation for shouldering provincial and Imperial respon- 
sibilities. Now this is a principle which does not admit 
of universal application. In fact the verdict of history 
is at least as much against it as in its favor. We have 
the case of Japan before us which disproves the univer- 
sality of the theory. Yet no Indian of any sense opposes 
the development of local self-government. In fact, ob- 
struction to the development of local self-government, the 
destruction of indigenous institutions, by which village, 
town and city governments were conducted in India be- 
fore British rule, is one of the principal charges which 
we bring against the present bureaucratic system of 
centralized government in India. Before the advent of 
the British, the country was mainly self -governed, ex- 
cept in Imperial matters. The British have destroyed 
those institutions by taking all the strings of government 
in their hands. It is now proposed to re-establish the 

28 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

Panchayet system in villages. Anyone who has closely 
studied village life in India, what it is now under the 
British, and what it was in pre-British days, will un- 
hesitatingly say that it is almost impossible to revive the 
village Panchayets (Councils). The conditions of life 
which had originally brought the Panchayets into exis- 
tence and which made them the efficient instruments of 
administration in pre-British days have ceased to exist. 
The old Panchayets were the outcome of the old condi- 
tions of life. The villages were mostly self-contained, 
with not much communication with the outside world. 
The Panchayets generally ruled by moral forces which 
have been immensely weakened, if not destroyed now. 
Village communities are no longer the compact, closely 
related, inter-dependent bodies which they once were. 
Under the old system the communal ties were so strong 
as to make it impossible for anyone to disobey or disre- 
gard the communal decisions. Freedom of movement 
into and from communities was restricted within the 
castes, all the reins of power were in the hands of caste 
councils. All inter-caste affairs were managed by caste 
organizations; all community interests looked after by 
the village councils. The village Panchayets had the 
power of taxation, which brought them sufficient revenue 
for communal purposes; they provided for education, 
sanitation, watch and justice. The villages did not pay 
any taxes for these purposes except to the Panchayets. 
All this has now been changed. The district authorities 
realize the road cess, the school cess, the Chaukidara and 
all other local cesses. In former days there was a small 
tax paid by all professions and trades not connected with 
land. This revenue was used for common purposes. 
Thus the old village councils had power and responsi- 

29 



AN OPEN LETTEE 

bilities. All this is now changed. The village indus- 
tries have been ruined, never to be revived again. The 
days of cottage industries are gone, most probably for- 
ever. The lands in villages are freely bought and sold, 
subject only to a precarious law of pre-emption, which is 
doomed to disappear sooner or later. The village ser- 
vants are no longer subordinate to the village community. 
It will be a calamity if education is localized and isolated 
in the sense it was in olden times. The administration 
of justice can not be placed in old conditions. "With the 
changed conditions of life, with greater freedom of move- 
ment, extended connection with and dependence on out- 
side life, it is impossible to restore the village councils to 
their old position. All that can be done is to have small 
village councils that will look after the village sanitation 
and represent the village in its relations with outside 
life. 

Mr. Gokhale proposed to assign them a part of the 
Excise revenue for village needs. It is difficult to say 
what exactly Mr. Gokhale meant by this suggestion. The 
moral and material interests of the community require 
that the sale of liquor and intoxicating drugs should be 
so restricted and controlled as to reduce the amount of 
revenue realized therefrom to a minimum. The present 
policy of raising a big revenue by the lease of licenses 
for the sale of liquor is extremely harmful as it naturally 
tends to increase the facilities for the sale of liquor and 
drugs. What other sources of income the village coun- 
<^' cils can have, has not been pointed out. Local self-gov- 
ernment in villages and Talukas, cannot be made a real- 
ity unless the land laws are so changed as to reduce the 
burden of the ryot, restrict the share of the landlord and 
reduce the Government demand to such an extent as to 

80 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

leave a decent margin to the ryot for a life of comfort. 
The greatest problem for the Indian administrator is 
how to raise the income of the ryot and the laborer and 
give him more to spend on himself and his family. This 
is not possible unless the land tax is reduced. Any re- 
duction in the land tax is impossible unless the foreign 
agency which rules India is done away with. At present 
the average income per capita in India is two pounds; 
the average taxation, seven shillings. The problem be- 
fore the country is to raise the income, per head of popu- 
lation, increase the revenues for public improvement and 
education, and reduce the incidence of taxation. 

It thus will be seen that in the case of India, the 
theory that you must build self-government from below 
is untenable. This is a case where reform must come 
from above. The Government of India must be democ- 
ratised in order to tackle the question of revenues and 
the cost of Administration. They will show the ways 
and means to local bodies and make it possible for them 
to inaugurate effective self-government. With the Gov- 
ernment of India or the Provincial Government squeez- 
ing everything possible from the people in the shape of 
taxes and spending it on the Army and on a foreign 
administrative agency and in paying the interest on 
foreign investments, nothing is left for local bodies to do. 
The latter cannot extract any blood from where there 
is none. With a tax of 71/2 per cent ad valorem on Justice 
(which reaches the figure of 221/2 per cent by the time the 
case is decided by the final Court of Appeal and Ee- 
^dsion), with the bulk of the revenues from the ],ocal 
cesses going into the Federal and Provincial treasuries 
in one form or another, hardly any sources of revenue 
are left for the local bodies. What we demand is that 

31 



AN OPEX LETTER 

sufficient power be conceded to local bodies (district, 
town and village), to make local self-government effec- 
tive. This cannot be done unless the constitution of the 
Federal and Provincial Governments is so far democ- 
ratised as to make it possible for the representatives of 
the people to lay down a fiscal policy which will enable 
them to shoulder the Imperial, the Federal and the Prov- 
incial liabilities, and yet leave sufficient margin for local 
bodies for local needs. 

The real issues then .are, how can India get fiscal 
autonomy, with power to reduce the cost of administra- 
tion, by reducing the strength of the foreign agency, or 
doing away with it? At present the scale of salaries 
which we are paying to the foreign administrators is 
tremendous as compared with the other countries of the 
world. Compare these salaries with what is allowed in 
the United States, in Germany, in Great Britain, in 
France, in Japan, and see what a great difference there is. 

Permit me respectfully to point out to you that the 
Indians are no longer children politically. They under- 
stand their affairs thoroughly. Any attempt to hood- 
wink them by confusing the real issues and raising clouds 
_of dust, will react on those who attempt to do so. What 
/ we v/ant is real political power. We are prepared to pay 
a reasonable price for our connection with the Empire, 
but the present position must change. As soon as 
we get fiscal autonomy, we shall set ourselves to the great 
task of securing such a just distribution of whatever 
wealth we earn as will secure decent lives to the masses 
of our people. After all, it is they who form the nation. 
With the strings of power in the hands of British capital- 
ists represented by the Secretary of State, and with a 
foreign bureaucracy controlling our lives day in and day 

32 



TO EDWIN SAMUEL MONTAGUE 

out, we cannot help being sullen and discontented. The 
wonder is not that India is discontented, but that the 
people are so law abiding, docile and loyal. Any further 
strain on their loyalty might end in fatal results. 

You have a great opportunity, Mr. Secretary, for 
winning the gratitude of an historic nation, comprising 
one-fifth of the human race. Remember that you will be 
making history in a way such as has not fallen to the lot 
of any of your predecessors. Your place in history will 
be determined by the amount of conscious courage and 
honesty of purpose you display in your great office. Re- 
member, please, that India has been on this earth for 
thousands of years and will endure for all time to come 
unless some geologic cataclysm overtakes it, even after 
the Curzons and Sydenhams and the ''Morning Post" 
have gone and been forgotten. India has had all kinds 
of good, bad, indifferent, benevolent and oppressive rul- 
ers. They are gone. Their memory — the good, the bad 
and the indifferent — abides in their deeds. So will it be 
with the British administrators also. Let it not be said 
by posterity that British statesmen at a psychological 
moment in their history (in 1917) failed to read the signs 
of the times. The time is with the people and the hands 
of the clock cannot be set back even by a Canute. 



New York, U. S. A. 
September 15, 1917. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

020 731 172 8 




